(April 3, 2018 at 11:18 am)Tiberius Wrote:(April 3, 2018 at 11:12 am)wallym Wrote: The example I gave earlier: If Lebron James signs a 1 year deal for 1 million dollars. Is he losing money with that deal? He's making 1 million dollars, but he could be making 30 million.
I don't think it'd be outlandish to say he'd have lost 29 million by signing that contract. Even though he's making 1 million.
He's not losing money, he's losing out on potential money. There's a difference. That 29 million wasn't his, so he didn't lose it.
In at least one circle I've been in, that's been described as losing money.
I can't remember if you are a poker player or not. But in poker, we look for flaws in our game. Which is places where we're losing money. That's how all the people I've read/talked to about it would phrase it.
So if Larry always calls with Kings, we'd say they are losing money by not raising. They probably still win more than they lose even playing it improperly, but nobody would ever say "You're making money by just calling kings every time you get them." If someone said "You're losing a fortune by just calling" everyone who plays poker seriously would nod in agreement without a second thought.
With poker, I can say that confidently. More anecdotally, I've experienced the same thing with Investors. Both on a personal level, and just on the tv/print.
Going back to the Lebron thing. The idea for a lot of people, and I think Trump would fit into the mindset I'm speaking of, is that Lebron being able to get 30 million makes him worth 30 million. And if he sells a 30 million product for 1 million dollars, he's losing 29 million dollars.
But again, this is just semantics. You can tell me I'm saying it wrong. But whether we phrase it as losing, or missing out on, it doesn't change the reality of the situation.
That the Post Office would benefit greatly from a smarter deal.
